Australian lawyer and XRP commentator Bill Morgan has recently attracted attention after urging Ripple to reduce the amount of XRP it re-locks each month from its 1 billion token escrow releases. He argues that speeding up the transition to full circulation could strengthen XRP’s narrative as a “hard money” asset and remove the lingering supply overhang that continues to weigh on market sentiment.
While the core idea is not new, Morgan’s framing sharpens the debate, especially given that Ripple’s own CTO Emeritus has already drawn clear boundaries around how far the company is willing to adjust its escrow policy.
With roughly 32.74 billion XRP still locked and the current release structure implying a timeline of about nine years to full circulation, the underlying mechanics give weight to Morgan’s position. The central question now being debated within the XRP community is whether that supply overhang is genuinely restrictive—and if Ripple has both the motivation and flexibility to shorten the timeline.
XRP escrow and supply structure
Ripple introduced its escrow system in 2017 by locking 55 billion XRP across 55 on-ledger contracts, each releasing 1 billion XRP on the first day of every month. The system was designed to create transparent, predictable supply issuance and prevent sudden large-scale token dumps from Ripple’s holdings.
However, it also effectively created an open-ended schedule. Ripple uses what it needs for operational and institutional purposes, then re-locks the remaining XRP into new escrow contracts, continuously extending the distribution timeline.
This structure leads to three key interpretations. First, reducing relocking would shorten the multi-year release horizon. Second, faster circulation could eliminate the perception of “shadow supply” that some believe suppresses valuation. Third, a fully circulating and predictable supply is often viewed as more attractive to institutional investors who prefer clear fundamentals over uncertain future issuance.
Morgan has previously defended the escrow system against claims that it is designed to suppress price. He also highlighted that XRP still rallied significantly—from around $0.50 to over $3.00 between late 2024 and early 2025—even while monthly releases continued. His current stance focuses on accelerating what he sees as a legitimate and orderly distribution process.
David Schwartz and the opposing view
Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has not supported accelerating the escrow release pace and has firmly rejected more extreme community proposals, including burning the locked XRP supply.
Schwartz has pointed to Stellar’s token burn as an example, arguing that supply reduction tends to produce only short-term market reactions rather than sustained value increases. He maintains that Ripple’s current approach—using what is needed and re-locking the rest—is intentional and structurally sound.
His position aligns with Ripple’s long-standing escrow design, which treats predictable issuance as a feature that supports institutional confidence. Any move to accelerate releases would require balancing potential reputational and liquidity benefits against the risk of increased short-term selling pressure—something Ripple has not indicated it intends to do.
Recent regulatory progress, including MiCA-related developments in Europe, further reinforces Ripple’s emphasis on compliance and predictable token economics as part of its institutional strategy.
What the debate reveals about XRP
Beyond headlines, the disagreement reflects two competing visions of XRP’s role. One side, represented by Morgan, sees value in a fully circulating supply that aligns with a “hard money” narrative and allows valuation to be driven purely by demand. The other side views Ripple’s controlled distribution as essential for maintaining institutional credibility and market stability.
A third concern cuts across both perspectives: increasing monthly circulating supply without proportional demand growth could intensify selling pressure. Current price behavior does not clearly suggest the market has enough demand absorption capacity to offset a faster release schedule without impact.
Ultimately, the debate highlights a deeper tension within XRP’s identity—between treating supply predictability as a strength, or viewing faster circulation as a path to stronger market legitimacy.
About The Author
More Stories
Standard Chartered Sees Aave Rallying to $3,500 by 2030 on DeFi Resurgence
Bitcoin Holds Near $62,500 as Bearish Pressure Intensifies Across Crypto Markets
Runes Comeback: Bitcoin Activity Surges to Two-Year High as Transactions Top 820,000